Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 22 January 2013

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Allyson Bergstrom (January 20, 2005). "Hard rock Christian Christian singer spreads gospel by rocking". The Daily O'Collegian.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Music/Music genres task force Contemporary Christian music is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christian music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Jon Gibson and others

I couldn't believe Gibson wasn't mentioned in the history of CCM with all his accomplishments/influences as well as others who would openly write songs about God/Jesus: Stevie Wonder ("Have a Talk with God" is just one example of many), Mariah Carey ("Make it Happen" and others), Hammer (needs no explanation, his article gives many examples if you're not familiar but I'll just type "Pray" as one), etc. Van Morrison and U2 and Bob Dylan are great examples. The Fray? Even though I own some of their music, I'm not familiar with their connection with "Christianity" and it's not as common knowledge in my opinion... nevertheless, the others I mentioned should stay in case someone is considering reverting my "good faith" contributions. If there are ANY questions, please discuss here first before creating an edit war or attempting to monopolize the content. I thought it necessary to type this section just in case. P.s. This article could use a lot more info (background). Perhaps one day I will work on it. For instance: Keith and Steve Green, David Meece, Happy Goodman Family, Gaither Vocal Band (original/new Gaithers), Rich Mullins, Carman, DeGarmo and Key (who also "crossed-over" and had videos air on MTV), etc. etc. At least the Imperials are listed . Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: CCM is not a "white-only" genre and isn't a "southern gospel/music" genre. CONTEMPORARY is also pop, hip-hop, r&b, country, jazz, dance and rock if it's mainstream and popular. It was an alternative to secular music with the same style/sound but with christian lyrics. Kirk Franklin (and The Family or God's Property) is a good example in the late 90s with their cross-over hit "Stomp". Or another hit called "Lean on Me" (including Bono of U2, R. Kelly, Crystal Lewis, etc.) among others. Many urban acts aren't even mentioned as CCM. The Tennesse-based comment should be cited/sourced. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Others would be Johnny Cash (considered secular) and Randy Stonehill (CCM pioneer). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit (before I saw this -- though that doesn't matter) because it isn't according to the source given (the same goes for my second edit). You can re-add any if you supply reliable verifiable source(s). --Musdan77 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They're legitimate examples per the articles they connect to but I'm going to add more details in a different context, instead of along with those already given within the pre-existing sentences/subject. Perhaps I'll create a whole entire section just for them and others I mentioned above with sources. Therefore, I'll go ahead and expand the article as I had planned to later. Thanks for the revert actually, I prefer to be more specific with my next entry (even though I think the exclusion of my edit was unnecessary). To be continued... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Completed/resolved. Please discuss before making any changes (which I don't think is necessary). Most if not all is already contained/expanded within the musician's articles. Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, a few different problems with your edits: First and foremost, you only used external links instead of inline citations, which is not only incorrect, it just looks a mess. The sources also need to corroborate with what the text is saying. Your first paragraph should not be the beginning of the section; it should be merged with the third paragraph. And GVB didn't start until the '80s, so they couldn't "pave the way" for the genre. Also, this is not a place for a list of artists. As you can see on this page, and in the archives, as well as the hidden text above the lead, this article has had a history of debating on which ones should be included. So, we've had enough problems with the one in the lead. Adding more lists just adds more problems. And one more thing, the word "eventually" is too vague. It needs to be more specific (with source). I will wait a while and give you a change to make improvements before taking any action. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Wait awhile"? What if I didn't get back on for a few days? There needs to be a consensus, not an edit war between you and I. Having the info added is fine. It's not incorrect. And I also do references that way and they get cleaned up later by bot or whoever. It is NOT a reason to remove or "take action". The sources do coincide with the text (ie. Kirk Franklin honored by CCM is a source I added although didn't elaborate on within the section), please take the time to read them if in doubt or the actual articles of the artist which already mention the info typed. The section required expansion and diversity. The first paragraph precedes the later-dated info as a better intro. If there are a few word choices that could be changed/improved, that's one thing, but to revert everything is inappropriate and not "policy". There needs to be others involved. A concensus is required, not just your impression/opinions (with all due respect and without any offense). And you may want to read my edit summaries. Please do not make this something more complicated. I just didn't go listing people and not provide appropriate "facts". You seem to be cherry-picking. The guidelines you posted on my talk page that I'm already familiar with is something you may want to review about the process as well. If the references need cleaning up, or some words changed/improved, by all means assist. I am also working on it gradually as able (not on your time-table). I can give more info about the artists after their name, HOWEVER, this article isn't about them and should have limited info about them. That is why it links to their articles. Not supposed to go into details about something the reader can learn more about on their articles. You don't "build up" or "put down" anything about anyone within a related article. It's not like I listed everyone, I gave influential musicians within the genre. Thanks and have a good night! P.S. I'm not sitting here watching what you have to say every minute of the day. Until I return, the info can stay. If others disagree or agree as well, please contribute to this discussion. Sorry if this "changes" the way you or others want the article to be, but is not Wiki's objective. These "good faith" edits are by all means legit. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not add both uses of "eventually" to the section but have fixed it. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your well-intended argument is that editors can't just list random acts/artists/bands/musicians within the article. I get that. However, that is NOT what I did. I created different sections/topics with context. This is very unproductive/unwarranted and so I will leave it as is for now and make improvements as I see necessary and have time. I can also work on the source/reference formats later perhaps, it's just not something I can devote time to at the moment. By all means, feel free to fix them. God forbid. (smile) Nonetheless, my effort complies with Wiki for the most part. Our time could be better spent in my opinion. Peace! :) P.S. GVB was just an effort to mention the "parent" Gaithers in general (per sources), but it has been corrected. Thanks for your understanding/cooperation. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the party. The issue isn't whether Gibson should or shouldn't be listed, it's whether there's a reliable source to support it. He had a lot of singles, bit I don't believe it was 22. Find a source to support it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is on his article already! As are other cites that verify this. That cite is from his actual website. Go to his article and view ALL the sources. You are making mistakes here. You don't remove it all, you discuss. You can prove it isn't true. It is according to Billboard and Gospel awards. And all the other info is fine, you don't remove everything... You just want to monopolize it, because that is the only other explanation since the info is legit. IE. Kirk Franklin and Winans and Gaithers, etc. Find it hard to believe you read all those cites or took the time to read the related articles. Seems you just want to revert people's work you don't like? Your actions are inappropriate. We need to have other editors involved to "arbitrate" since you will continue to revert to get your way. You have something against Gibson and all the rest? This isn't the place to smother facts/truth. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What's in this article already? A link to an Amazon.com listing of a book: http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Contemporary-Christian-Music-Worship/dp/0313344256

• SCROLL DOWN TO "Book Description" (UGH!)

A list of albums? http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content/1324760288?page=1458915&sp=1002

• CLICK ANOTHER SECTION (INCOMPLETE ADDRESS)

A vanity site: http://www.praise-and-worship.com/contemporary-christian-music.html

• ERROR

The only really good reference, but still not a WP:RS http://voices.yahoo.com/using-contemporary-christian-music-during-worship-363265.html?cat=34

Another non RS: http://www.christianmusicarchive.com/artist/happy-goodmans

• MISTAKE

An empty page: http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/the-oak-ridge-boys/videos/

• CLICK "BIOGRAPHY" (http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/the-oak-ridge-boys/biography/)

I am not going through each one of the terrible references. Please learn what makes a good reference and what constitutes a reliable source. Your links don't apply to either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that what you're writing is or isn't true because that's not the point. Nor is it about what I do and don't like: I love Jon Gibson's music. (YOU EDIT ON HIS PAGE SO YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT I TYPED WAS CORRECT.) It's about reliable sources. If you want to discuss it and learn, we'll be happy to do that. If you want to edit war, you may also do that, but you won't last very long. And for the record, any further edits here would likely violate the three revert rule. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrible references? You have a bad attitude and it's not something you should be doing on Wiki. First of all, you don't need sources for facts that are already mentioned on the related article. You read the artist's article and it shows they have written/sang christian music. I was just elaborating on this article since it did not give a broad enough example. They have albums and songs already provided on the article. It doesn't require sources. The articles they relate to are sourced. It's not new info! It's not original work. You should stop belittling me and attacking my abilities. You sound very immature and it violated policy. Those sources were to verify they actually produced christian music. They aren't even needed. The entire article isn't even sourced (barely). You only want the people listed YOU want. That's the truth. You also remove the cites that aren't good. You don't revert the entire section. You are power-tripping and it is inappropriate. You never know who is editing and you need to give the benefit of the doubt. Remove what doesn't comply, prove it doesn't comply and keep what is good. That is the way you do things. Other editors/admin will need to assist during this dispute. You are not the final word. If you're not going through them all then you are not required to remove it all. P.S. I also believe you must have more than one account. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, terrible references. It's not personal. I'm sorry you think I'm trying to make it personal and I won't respond that way to you.

The people (some are bands) listed are those who are described based on a criteria discussed above. If you really want to discuss the references, pick one statement and the references you provided to support it and I'll show how they're not good references. I have already listed six and shown how they don't meet Wikiepdia's requirements, but if you'd like to question me, which you're free to do, ask at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

If you think I have more than one account, you may take it up at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations.

I am not the final word, as can be seen above. Feel free to ask specific questions, stop the personal attacks and work at improving the content here rather than add poorly referenced material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I just checked and almost every paragraph is referenced. The lists of artists are per consensus as discussed above (Dove winners). Anything else you'd like to have referenced, feel free to use the {{Citation needed}} template. Provided that no material is removed, you wouldn't be edit warring by adding it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're the one attacking me. Don't spin it around on me. You did that. And yes, I want this to go to a noticeboard but I am worn out with you and this for the moment. I actually have a life. I'm on the tail-end of this drama. You provide me with why each one is not right. You have the info, I'm not asking each one individually. I also do not need to source what's sourced on their article and already "proven". I will also not deal with you, I want someone unrelated to you and myself. And I will check into you using multiple accounts and your long history of reverting just so your agenda is enforced. Good night! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not doing anymore work on it. YOU reverted it. You replace it and add "citation required" (or rather one you'll be happy with or others actually). You don't just undo everything, belittle me and my editing, make yourself seem right and then tell me to do more to make it right. You know what can be done to fix them. You know overall and in general it is ALL good. Does it maybe need better sources or wording, etc.? Perhaps. So we leave it as is or what is good and discuss further as we work at it a little bit at a time... and you add "error" citation templates. But you don't just revert EVERYTHING, create an edit war, put me down, bully me with messages on my talk page and then tell me it needs this and that to be okay with YOU. Do that yourself. Fix the references. Include the templates. It's unproductive to be lazy and just undo everything editors do that you know in the "big picture" is right. YOU just don't like the sources and Gibson's and the other articles are proof they are legit. Their pages are full of sources. You put a message here letting me know to change them and work on it and I comply. You don't undo it and then be a total jerk to me/people. You removed good sources and for that you are wrong. IE. GMA and the music/christian/news articles, etc. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your "terrible editing" comments and added new sources, one including NY Times. Some I removed were (see below section for more): 99.129.112.89 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The CCM is not CCM magazine

− − You keep linking contemporary Christian music when you mean to link to CCM Magazine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − Not true. I already connected it to CCM Magazine when it applied. Please discuss in talk page, do not create edit wars. It's unproductive. This can go to an arbitration/concensus/resolution page if necessary. It's all fine, just not how you want it (as is many other edits I see you have hystorically reverted). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − : Please resolve in talk page, do not create edit wars while a discussion is already in process. Wiki does not promote editors getting their way with articles. Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − :: I saw it twice. I removed it twice. Contrary to what you wrote on my talk page, and I have moved here, I am not edit warring: you are. I'm sorry you feel that I am getting in your way, I am simply preserving Misplaced Pages from bad edits, mostly bad references. − :: Please stop now and learn to edit. You removed the welcome message here. Feel free to see the information provided there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − How are they bad sources? You are not supposed to attack editors. You typed "learn to edit". There needs to be a consensus. I am requesting this go to an arbitration/resolution article to discuss. You have a history of just reverting things you don't like. That is wrong! You created the edit war, not me. The info is correct. Seems like I'm the one getting in your way as you have an "agenda" and want to sabatoge my efforts (and others). I took time doing that and it seems like you and the other editor are "jealous"? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − : I explained how they're bad sources on the article's talk page. − : I am not attacking you or any other editor, I am protecting the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry that you feel attacked. That can happen when you think you're doing a good job, throw a lot of effort into editing and have most or all of it removed. − : There does appear to be consensus: two editors have complained about your additions to the article and it's clear that the additions do not meet Wikpedia's standards for reliable sources. − : I have a history of reverting, but it's not based on what I do or don't like. There's no sabotage, no jealousy. I'm sorry you can't see the poor quality of your edits, but I can dissect them further on the article's talk page if you would like. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − Yes do that. Every one you have issue with, explain/disprove. Keep the good stuff. You need to spend more time doing research. Here is the thing. You and I disagree. We both need to find someone unrelated to assisting us to give input. And you're the one who has a lot to learn. Your communication and people skills are poor in my opinion. You are passive-aggressive and patronizing. Your attacks about my poor quality only reflect how insecure you are. My edits are good. What I put on that article if fact. You just don't want it there. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − :Stick to the facts, please stop posting unnecessary stuff on this page. You are being overly dramatic. We are discussing. You don't need to post warnings and junk that isn't a problem. Your threats do not scare me. You are the one who violated policy and getting away with it for now, and you created an edit war because you don't like/want the content on the article. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − We BOTH know I did not vandalize. You just went into "defense" and overly attack mode. I didn't just put something false on the page or graphic. You don't need to post stuff on here about "warnings" and "vandalism". You are WAY out of line. We should be discussing, not removing anything or making the other person feel that their good faith edits are "poor". You are very rude! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The point to ALL of this is that the info I put within the article are TRUE. They don't need sources. So remove them and leave the content. It's that simple. You can't deny what is already proven. If doubts Gibson has that many hit records, he needs to do his own research to find the truth. Not revert EVERYTHING else that is good. He is wrong and doesn't want to be told that. He didn't come up with it and it "feels" he is doing this intentionally as has a history of monopolizing article content. (Also, it's odd how the "other editor" has become silent now ...and even though no one else has assisted yet... it leaves me to believe there is an agenda to include only info ONE person wants.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter, list all references you feel do not meet Wiki guidlines although many are used in related articles, and I will get better ones or just remove them all together as there are multiple ones that do not need to even be within the article. The statements I made link to their articles already. If you do not list them, I will not undo your revert, but I will in good faith replace it all with the references missing since they don't even need to be there. IF your only complaint is Gibson then I will provide the Billboard cite off his page. If that is the case, you shouldn't have undid everything. That's your bad. You are making more work than there needs to be. I must not be as bored, since I don't appreciate doing all this unproductive work (waste of time). Bye for now! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

this was moved from the talk page of 99.129.112.89. The warnings here were not made to the article. Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Contemporary Christian music, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Contemporary Christian music. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Contemporary_Christian_music&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Contemporary_Christian_music&diff=534126668&oldid=534126240

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NUT 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement not sourced

Pioneers of this movement also included 2nd Chapter of Acts, Andraé Crouch and the Disciples, Evie, Nancy Honeytree, The Imperials, Love Song, Barry McGuire, and Petra. The small Jesus music culture had expanded into a multi-million-dollar industry by the 1980s. Many CCM artists such as Amy Grant, DC Talk, Michael W. Smith, Stryper, and Jars of Clay found crossover success with Top 40 mainstream radio play. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Artists in intro also not sourced. It may be logical but if my entries that were sourced and have "proof" within their article is not accepted, these too should have reliable sources. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want sources, I have five books that reference the material you complain about in the first section comment, although Petra really didn't become influential until 1981's "The Coloring Song". The crossover artists are valid as they received airplay for the same songs in both mainstream and CCM radio, but you're right, there is no reference for that. The artists in the intro were selected by their dominance of modern Dove awards, which was the consensus that was reached above. Feel free to tag whatever you want. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Diversity within CCM added

The obvious shouldn't need sources when it's already stated within the articles that I linked topics to/from. I'm willing to remove more sources if they aren't allowed, but here are some of the references I had used and removed (created a new section and added some new sources):

5. /artist/gaither-vocal-band/11905293/

99.129.112.89 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding by number:

1. A list of albums that a reader is required to infer what the point is. If you were stating that they have been releasing albums since 1962, this might be a good reference. Since you were trying to reference the fact that they were a precursor to CCM, one of several "early acts", it doesn't succeed. Second point, who is "Dave Maurer", the person who has copyrighted that page? Third, what is the policy for submission for that site (there is a submission button on the top)? It could be an open wiki. I'm not stating that the Happy Goodmans are not a Christian music group, but that page in no way supports that they are a precursor to CCM. What would be needed is a statement by an editor of CCM magazine, Harvest Rock Syndicate, Cornerstone magazine, or any one of the other reliable sources on Christian music stating that they were a an early CCM group. A list of albums is not sufficient to prove the point being made.
2. Empty page. What are you trying to show by it?
3. Lists songs from some unknown album, but has some of the same problems as the first link: a list of albums does not indicate that they were an early act associated with CCM. They are certainly a long-running band, but in no way does it support the statement being made.
4. Who is the creator of the essay on http://www.christianmusic.com? Also, most can draw from this is that they won Dove awards in the early 1970s, well before the term CCM was coined and before the musicians were invited to join the Gospel Music Awards. It does not support that they were part of the lineage of CCM. This entire section might be better suited to a section at the Christian music article than it is here.
5. Another blank page. Do I need to have an account on eMusic? What would a list of songs or albums be supporting?
6. Again, this might be a reasonable source, but who is "R.E. Norton"? Why can I "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites"? Is this just an open website? Also, supporting a statement that Gibson was getting "considerable" airplay isn't supported there. He doesn't mention the artist. He did get some airply, but was it "considerable"? I don't recall that as being the case and the source doesn't support it.
7. No denying that Cash sang Gospel music, but listing an album of his doesn't support that "Contemporary Christian music became mainstream" with him. First, you're equating CCM, a term coined in the mid-seventies with Gospel music again. They were different streams of music. Second, there's no support that it made Gospel music more mainstream than it was before. There is too much left to the reader's interpretation. I know that Cash was a top-selling artist at the time, but how much airplay did his Gospel songs get? Were they selling better than Elvis' Gospel music a decade before that? Did they sell more than Gospel music in the 40s, the 30s, or earlier? There's no question that Gospel music was already popular, so there's no support of the statement, which is what is needed.
8. Appears to be the same album as the previous item.
9. Again, an iTunes listing of Cash's music says nothing to support anything.
10. Again, the todayschristianmusic.com listing of Cash's music says nothing to support anything.
11. A listing of Stevie Wonder's writing credits on the albums of others says nothing to support anything.
12. A list of P.O.D. photos is supposed to support what exactly?
13. Steve Green list of nothing supports what?
14. Pat Boone songs supports what when the album was released in 2004? Boone did start Lamb & Lion Records that released several CCM albums, but he himself never performed CCM nor did his music shape or found CCM. You are equating Gospel music again with CCM.
15. The CCM-TV Carman Concert Special: Raising the Standard Live does not support that Carman received "considerable airplay". He did get some airplay, but he was also very controversial and some stations didn't play his singles at all.
16. Carman's Allmuisc bio is a reliable source! It even partially supports the statement it's a reference to: "he issued a series of LPs which gradually launched him to the top of CCM playlists"!
17. Again, a list of P.O.D. is designed to support what statement?

Most importantly, Misplaced Pages:Citing sources shows you how to cite sources, particularly at WP:INCITE. I was getting ready to convert them to proper references when I noticed that they were mostly terrible references and decided, as other editors have done, that the material isn't salvageable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bored. I'm not even reading any of this and I mean I have not read any more of your replies. You are not focused or paying attention to what I'm even trying to communicate. I just scrolled down to type that/this. I could care less about any of this now, I have better things to do. I have a life. Moving on. It won't matter what you have to say or whatever, this is petty to me and I won't stoop to your level to read/reply or participate in it. It's really no big deal to me. I feel bad for you that it's so "important" to have your way. I know one thing: AVOID YOU aka Walter Gorlitz. You have been the only "trouble maker" over the years and I see you are this way with many other editors as well. Yet Wiki still enables your poor behavior, and for that, I am not even concerned with editing for Wiki at the moment. I'm a professional. I have dignity and respect for myself. Your opinions and incorrect info is not worth debating. You are wrong about nitpicking and not sourcing other info within the article too. You also have a "double-standard" about yourself that is creepy. But hey, have it your way. Hope that makes you feel better about yourself. PEACE "christian"! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not about having it my way. It's about having the way Misplaced Pages expects. The references were not acceptable and that's what several editors have told you. I'm sorry that you've made this personal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Be consistent!

Another problem I found after my edits were removed was the "Controversy" section. Is this really a reliable source? Seems like typical manipulation and hypocrisy, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages... especially within Christian article you'd think! (sigh) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

http://christianmusic.about.com/od/trivia/a/ccmhistory.htm

Yes. About.com is known as a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement requires removal: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive13#ABOUT.COM (this source also includes Kirk Franklin and Carman which you removed because it was my entry/input and not yours.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC) FYI: you didn't read everything nor understand it correctly. The sites provided didn't just show albums or books. I responded to the reasons above which you didn't see I guess. God forbid you scroll or click "Bio". Regardless, the cites aren't required. They are facts that are already included within an article. You just want to control certain articles. Plain and simple. Bye! P.S. Your books don't count either. I mean, really? Hello!?! Is anyone really seeing this? Just admit you want the article your way. Actually, don't. I know the truth. Remove the bad entries without proper sources. You said it yourself, dude. I just returned here to school you. I was advised to return here to inform you of this. Again, I am right. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class music genre articles
• Music genres task force articles
• B-Class Christian music articles
• Top-importance Christian music articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christian music articles